So, as I mentioned the other day, there was a Berkeley City Council meeting yesterday whose sole topic on the agenda was the lawsuit against UC and UC’s proposed settlement offer.  Admittedly, I was curious, so I decided to head over to Berkeley and see what the City Council had to say for themselves.

Unfortunately, the City Council had very little to say, at least in public.  Earlier in the day, UC presented the Council with the parameters for a settlement offer.  Copies of this settlement offer were passed around for everyone to read.  The entire (public) portion of the meeting consisted of a public comment period, which was followed by a closed door discussion between the Council and a vote on the settlement offer.  I’m told this was a short discussion.

If you haven’t heard by now, the City Council rejected the settlement offer 7-1-1, with Gordon Wozniack dissenting and Kriss Worthington abstaining.  Honestly, after reading the settlement offer, I’m not terribly surprised.  It wasn’t substantially different from what’s been presented before in the news.  While it does offer concessions to the city, it’s still so far apart from what the City wants that the council must have considered it a rather insulting lowball offer.  They have evidently decided that they would rather lose in court, thereby giving up whatever concessions they could wrangle from the University in a settlement, than be crucified by (a vocal minority of) their own constituents after the settle out of court for less than a complete capitulation by the University.

Personally, I think the City’s best play is to settle.  While UC isn’t offering a great deal in concessions, most of those concessions do concern areas over which the City has no legal grounds on which to object (such as the number of parking spaces).  I think the lack of substantive concessions is an indication that UC feels strongly about its legal standing in the upcoming trial; their settlement offer may be more about being able to claim they tried to work with the City than about actually trying to avoid the trial altogether.

The meeting itself I thought represented the best and worst of the democratic process.  The best: every man and woman present was allowed to step forward and speak their mind to their elected representatives, who listened attentively throughout the process.  The worst: every idiot with an opinion on the process was allowed to waste 2 minutes of everyone’s time with his poorly-reasoned arguments, making everyone in the room dumber for having heard them.

Case in point:  the first speaker, who I’m 80% sure was RunnieDub, although he didn’t give his name, and I couldn’t see any of the speakers for all of the placards being held up high by activists on both sides.  First came the classic "football won’t heal global warming" argument.  Then he went on to threaten the political futures of every councilman and -woman.  He claimed that he was going to get in contact with each and every person of native descent in the area and tell them never to vote for these councilmembers.  Then, he claimed that since hispanics have native blood in them, they were also his brethren(!), and none of them would ever vote for any of the councilmembers again either!  Finally, he stated his intention, next week, of starting the process of recalling Mayor Bates.  Gosh, he’s one angry dude.

I’d say the crowd was maybe 60-40 in favor of the lawsuit, although that began shifting as the meeting ran on, as Cal supporters who’d said their piece headed off, while all the retired Berkeley activists with nothing better to do hung around.  A good number of Cal alums were present, but not all of them were against the lawsuit.  Anyway, I was going to write a more coherent summary, but I think you can get a pretty good idea of how the meeting went from the notes I took at the meeting, which follow.

——————–

Representative from Berkeley Chamber of Commerce calls for a settlement, to a large smattering of applause.

Cal Lacrosse Player pleads for Stadium with prepared speech.  Talks about lack of funds, support, poor locker rooms, etc.

Next speaker feels that essence of Berkeley and the community, and human values supports the lawsuit.  Good applause from activist.

Angry guy rambles about legal arguments and precedence and such.  No idea.

Conservation and Resource College student at cal.  Walk-on crew member.  Talks about the importance of facilities, and the importance of close proximity.  Decent applause.

Crowd support at trees since December.  Argues that student safety is UCs problem.  Large applause from tree activist.

Vice-Chamcellor of student admin.  Berkeley resident.  Talks of evaluating over a dozen sites for new gym.  This is only site that meets all their needs.  Retrofitting stadium for student and fan safety.  Extensive geologic testing, no faults under footprint.  Laughter at this last point, probably activists assume UC is just lying.

Next speaker proposes outreach office to join in a coalition of state university host cities.  Hire lobbyists in sacramento to fight in state legislature.  Want to enact legislation making state compensate host cities for services and strain on resources from universities.

Next speaker objects to the entire project as a whole, and its impact on Berkeley.  Sees lawsuit as the best way to fight the whole project.

Next speaker claims that trees telepathically speak to him.  Used to teach classes in that oak grove.  Apparently, old trees speak to him more than young trees.  Lots of other arguments full of logical flaws.

Cherokee speaker.  Desecration of historical sites. 15,000 native people boxed in small boxes (where?).  Over 100 sacred sites on campus.  Apparently this is public record.  Ancestral remains of Ohlone tribe on site.

Objects to Kitchen Democracy.  Wants lawsuit process to continue.  Also loves Oak Grove.

Disabled Berkeley resident.  Disillusioned with City and projects that are allowed to continue.  Claims that there are two other sites the facility could be located.  Doesn’t want to see ecosystem destroyed.

Next speaker wants everyone moved out of stadium right now, into portables if necessary, for safety’s sake.  UC is hypocritical for not doing so.

Berkeley resident urges a settlement to stop spending public and UC funds on lawsuit.

ASUC senator.  Resolution in support of student high performance center.  Claims that recent concessions have swayed the ASUC senate towards this position.  Wants safe facility ASAP.

More global warming arguments.  Etc. Etc.  Also claims that new trees won’t grow because of drought.  Seems to have a limited understanding of science. A little applause.

Cal grad, Berkeley resident, small business owner.  Growing number of business owners and shoppers and such, that support the university.  Doesn’t want taxpayer dollars wasted.

Former City Council Member.  Parent of former Cal athlete and honor student.  Complaining about facilities.  South Berkeley resident.  Wants city to settle.  Wants compromise, encourages safety of students.

Another South Berkeley resident wants compromise.

Another woman asks, "What does City win if it wins the lawsuit?"  No answer is given.

Another woman asks to "Save Strawberry Canyon".  Not sure what that means.  Wants to maintain lawsuit if only to force negotiation and compromise from city.

Old man rambles about trees and backbone and such.

Berkeley resident and co-founder of UC Berkeley chapter of Sierra Club claims that all the misstatement and bad science regarding tree huggers is hurting real environmental causes based on real science.

Rep from Athletic Dept. on the Men’s swim team.  Extolls "power of team".  Wants some sort of settlement and agreement reached.

West Berkeley resident tired of City being bullied by a minority of combatitive residents with nothing better to do and no interest in compromise.

President of PHA (NIMBYs).  Claims that previous letters between Panoramic Hill and Chancellors prevents any non-football events at the stadium.

Hippie is against cutting down trees, but still wants City to find some sort of compromise.